1987 PLP 1863 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN LASHKARANI
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1863 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN LASHKARANI |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1863 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1863 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1863 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN LASHKARANI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Gulzar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.3.
- Date of hearing: 21st July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 20th May, 1981 in Criminal. Revision No.968 of 1980). ‑‑‑Ss. 307 & 324‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑ Reduction in sentence‑‑Mitigating circumstances‑‑Petition for enhancement of sentence‑‑Respondent's conviction under section 307, P. P. C. and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment altered by High Court to that under section 324, P.P.C. and sentence reduced to one year R.I: =Reasons given by High Court being that injuries sustained by fire‑arm were simple in nature, fire was not repeated and respondents suspected that complainant‑petitioner was carrying on illicit relationship with respondent's sister‑‑No other background of enmity between parties existed and respondents had faced agony of prolonged trial for over 61 years‑‑Case, being not a fit case for interference, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL J.‑‑ This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Mohammad Nawaz petitioner and is directed against the judgment dated 20 May, 1981 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby conviction of Mohammad Hussain and Sher Mohammad respondents was altered from one under section 307 PPC to that under section 324, P.P.C., and their sentence was reduced from five years' R.I. each to one year's R.I. each. Hence this petition for enhancement of sentence awarded to the respondents. The respondents alongwith eight others were tried under section 148/307/149, P.P.C. by Magistrate Section 30, Mianwali, who vide his judgment dated 27 August, 1980 convicted the two respondents under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to five years' R.I., whereas the other co‑accused were acquitted of the charges. The occurrence took place on 19 March, 1972 at 5 p.m. and the report was lodged about 21 hours thereafter. The prosecution version is that Mohammad Nawaz complainant‑petitioner alongwith Mohammad Nawaz son of Allah Bakhsh was returning home when they were attacked by the respondents who were armed with guns. They sustained injuries due to the shots fired by the respondents. The motive for the offence was that the respondents had a suspicion that Mohammad Nawaz complainant‑petitioner had illicit relations with the sister of Mohammad Hussain respondent. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore have accepted the prosecution version completely but the learned Single Judge has advanced cogent reasons in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment for altering the conviction and reducing the sentence of the respondents. The reasons are that the injuries sustained in this case although by fire‑arm were simple in nature, the fire was not repeated, the respondents had suspected that the complainant‑petitioner was carrying on illicit relationship with the sister of Mohammad Hussain respondent, there was nothing on the record to show that there was any other background of enmity between the parties and that the respondents had faced the agony of prolonged trial for over 61 years. In that view of the matter in our view it is not a fit case for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.I./M‑174/S ‑‑‑‑‑ Petition dismissed.